If anyone things "getting bin Laden" is the goal of this whole thing, you are completely mistaken. Bush said from day 1 that our goal is not to get bin Laden, but to fight terrorism. I agreed with it then, and I agree with it now. This is how a leader responds when a nation is threatened. bin Laden is not the threat- terrorism is. So he set out to stamp out terrorism. For all we know, bin Laden is dead anyway. If not, he is not in the best of health, and would ide eventually anyway. If he keeled over of natural causes, do we stop fighting? Of course not!This is in no way a "wag the dog" situation. Iraq has clear connections to terrorists- in finances and trains them. It has met with Al Quida many times, and DEFINITLY strongly supports Hammas. I can't think of a stronger target to go after now that Afghanistan is over. And don't forget, we still have operations going on in the Phillippines and Yemen to combat terror, so it is not like we have not been doing anything.Even if Afghanistan did not totally stamp out al Quaida, or kill bin Laden, we f*cked them up bad. We liberated Afghanistan, and set it on the course of ending its long civil war and rebuilding. Unlike Clinton's token attack, Bush went in, accomplished many of our goals, exacted retrobution, and did a lot of good of the Afghanis. Clinton would never have the balls to do something like that. He would have to spend 6 weeks polling, to start with.If you want to talk about political maneuvering, take a look at the Democratic Congress who wants to avoid the issue until after the election, and instead talk about BS issues that will help them get elected. Lets not forget that when Clinton was in office, talking about hitting Iraq, every senior Democrat congressman who is still in office today was SUPPORTING attacking Iraq for the very reasons Bush wants to now. The only reason they are against him is because he is a Republican (and they care more about partisan politics than National Security) and forign policy is Bush's strongest point in the polls and they do not want to go into an election with something like that in the forefront. To be honest, it makes me sick. If they really cared about the so-called "kitchen table" issues, they would rush to get Bush his approval, because he is going to get it anyway, and then move on to the issues they find important. Instead they are dragging their feet and getting nothing done at all. Pathetic...

Clinton isn't responsible for the "years of prosperity" - he simply caught the E-Boom at the right time and left just before that particular bubble burst. In fact, a lot of the bullshit going on with big business right now is stuff he was letting happen right under his nose. But, of course, if someone in his staff or at the DOJ had investigated Enron and the like, the economy might have gone in the tank sooner than it did.

First of all, bin Laden is the guy with the money, which is crucial. And, I'm sure he has become an idol to everyone who hates America. Just because he is not the only terrorist in the world doesn't mean he isn't individually very important. More importantly, capturing (or killing) him is a psychologically necessary thing for a country whose psyche has really been fucked over by these attacks. If someone you know is murdered, it's not enough for the government to tell you that dammit, they're gonna do their utmost to end all murders in the future. That would mean nothing to you whatsoever. What you want is for the guy who did it to be brought to justice. That's just how it works. I'm sure Bush is as aware of this as anybody and wishes he could deliver that. I agree that BOTH parties often oppose each other just for the hell of it... I hate that. I think the upcoming vote may be so overwhelmingly in favor of action against Iraq that you won't be able to argue that that is actually happening here. We'll have to see on that.

You see this? You see how my body's glowing like that? Yeah... a lot of people can't do that. Come get some of this glowing. Oh, okay, you. You want some. You want some of the glowing. Look, man... your soul... I'm going to totally floss with it and chew on your spirit. I read that somewhere. But I'll do it.

Pool-Boy, I don't have the time to get into it right now, but damn near every single sentence in your post is unbelievably mis-informed. I'll take care of it later (the Harvest Moon Festival in Animal Crossing is about to begin!)

But, doesn't this just say it all:

(edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 21.9.02 1756)

(edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 21.9.02 1757)"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree."---George Carlin

"Facts?! Aw, people can use facts to explain anything that's even remotely true!"---Homer Simpson

Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastardPool-Boy, I don't have the time to get into it right now, but damn near every single sentence in your post is unbelievably mis-informed. I'll take care of it later (the Harvest Moon Festival in Animal Crossing is about to begin!)

Fine, whatever, the figures are pretty damned easy to check, if you're so inclined. They're right, I assure you.

EDIT: Okay, click here:Click Here. (Requires Adobe Acrobat - from the American Association of the Advancement of Sciences website. Says the exact same thing. Now, explain to me why it's wrong and stop bitching about the source.)

(edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 21.9.02 2312)"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree."---George Carlin

"Facts?! Aw, people can use facts to explain anything that's even remotely true!"---Homer Simpson

...and there's your problem right there. Suddenly America is bigger, bolder and badder than everybody else and can do what it wants, when it wants. Answer me this: Bush and co. hand their ultimatum to Saddam-let the UN back in and show us your arms or we'll go to war. After some cajoling, Saddam says "Okay, I really don't want my country blown up anyway, you guys can come back in". THEN, suddenly those demands just aren't ENOUGH for our tirgger-happy friend and suddenly they're raised too "Oooh, you're not getting off THAT easily-now we want you to COMPLETELY disarm!". I'm not just attacking your country here-our prime minister is just as guilty for supporting such a half-baked idea. But then nothing, NOTHING I say here will change anybody's minds: those that are for Bush are gonna stay that way no matter what.

...and there's your problem right there. Suddenly America is bigger, bolder and badder than everybody else and can do what it wants, when it wants. Answer me this: Bush and co. hand their ultimatum to Saddam-let the UN back in and show us your arms or we'll go to war. After some cajoling, Saddam says "Okay, I really don't want my country blown up anyway, you guys can come back in". THEN, suddenly those demands just aren't ENOUGH for our tirgger-happy friend and suddenly they're raised too "Oooh, you're not getting off THAT easily-now we want you to COMPLETELY disarm!". I'm not just attacking your country here-our prime minister is just as guilty for supporting such a half-baked idea. But then nothing, NOTHING I say here will change anybody's minds: those that are for Bush are gonna stay that way no matter what.

Because the UN really is a great organization, and one the US (and everyone) should bow to. After all, who can criticize an organization that puts Lybia in charge of its human rights committee, as the UN is set to do. After all, no one loves human rights more than Qadaffi. And I'm SURE we can completely trust Saddam, right? Hey, I bet he meant every word when he agreed to all these UN stipulations over 10 years ago, right? That likely explains his firing at allied planes in no-fly zones. It isn't even remotely possible that Saddam is doing this to jerk us (as in, the world) around, is it? Nahhhhhh...

As for "those who are for Bush will stay for Bush no matter what," well, gimme a break. Isn't it possible that those of us on the right on this message board might have reasons for our beliefs?

/edit: And sorry for calling OFB out on his source twice, there... I didn't realize I'd already replied to that one.

(edited by PalpatineW on 22.9.02 1659)Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.

Originally posted by PalpatineW After all, who can criticize an organization that puts Lybia in charge of its human rights committee, as the UN is set to do. After all, no one loves human rights more than Qadaffi.

The also kicked us completely off the panel to replace us with...Syria. The UN is just international America-haters amalgamated...

No, OFB is right. The surplus and the budget did go up during Clinton's presidency. Of course, it was thanks to a Republican congress, but let's just gloss over that minor detail.

The Republican view of politics and the economy the last 25 or so years:

The late 70s economy was awful. Remember stagflation and the misery index? All President Carter's fault.

Of course, the huge recession in 82 was the result of the Democratic Congress, not President Reagan (sp?). The rest of the 80s though, when the economy was good, was all Reagan, not the Democratic Congress.

That Recession in the early 90s? That's the Democratic Congress's fault. Not Bush's.

Now that recovery afterward? Not due to the balanced budget bill passed without a single Republican vote in 92. It's, of course, due to the Republican congress from '94' on. Same for the rest of the economic boom. It's OK to also credit Alan Greenspan somewhat (just make sure you don't mention his opposition to the Bush tax cuts for the insanely-rich), and maybe even say "I give Bill Clinton credit for not screwing anything up when our economy was the best it's been this century."

Now, the recession we're in now? That of course, is Clinton's fault, not the Republican congress' and certainly not the current administration's. In fact, you can't blame the current administration for anything bad that happens when they're in office at all, as it's all obviously started under Clinton. If the economy recovers soon though, that's different, then it of course is because of the Bush tax cuts. It doesn't matter if it's tomorrow or in 5 years. We aren't sure yet if Congress will get credit/blame for what happenes yet, ask us, say, in mid/Novemember. We should have a better idea by then.

I would certainly expect that there would be budget surpluses towards the Clinton reign, considering he was responsible for more tax increases than any US president in history...Budget surpluses do not mean a good economy. The whole Democratic econimic model relies on heavy tax increases so that they can increase spending, there-by relying on the extra money and forcing the need for further tax increases.Take Social Security for example. That was a Democrat-spearheaded program though, while necessary, is fatally flawed and will do more to hurt our country than help. Why? Well think about it. The average lifespan of an American when that was introduced was 67... so they would only be getting these benefits on paper for 2 years! Now the lifespan is in the 80s... and you still start to get benefits at 65! There is a fundamental flaw in this program and every time a Republican tries to fix it, every Democrat and their mother starts SCREAMING how the Republicans are trying to cut the budget on the backs of the "hard working American seniors" blah blah blah.You are right, there is a budget deficit, because there are hundreds of ridiculous programs that the Democrats have forced through, and even more that are flawed, that the moment anyone tried to fix it, the Democratic core starts yelling about the "money grubbing Republicans" trying to hurt the working Americans.There are many very important "social" programs that it is important for the government to have in place, the problem is that the Democrats care less about the effect of the programs, and more about their own power base. Get voters dependant on the system, whether it works or not, and then keep the power. OF COURSE a 67 year old is going to be upset when someone implied that they do not deserve Social Security, and that is the only reason that program is supported by the left. You want me to take these so called "budget surpluses" more seriously? How about fixing the government programs that they are supposed to fund, instead of taxing the hell out of me (and I am by no means "rich") and I will agree with you. Anyone can throw up a pretty graph that presents data in a narrow perspective. How about supplementing that with a detailed analysis of new spending, outdated government prgrams, tax increases, and overall cost of government? How much do you want to be that during those "surplus" years, the new spending and tax increases are through the roof? It is beyond me how anyone would have no problem with paying more money to the government out of their hard earned paycheck when 90% of it gets wasted by beaurocracy, and 5% is wasted on unecessary and flawed programs! The fact is, I do not care about "budget surpluses" as much as I care about what the money is being spent on. We pay enough to the government as it is... lets cut the fat. Hmm?

Originally posted by MoeGatesNow that recovery afterward? Not due to the balanced budget bill passed without a single Republican vote in 92. It's, of course, due to the Republican congress from '94' on. Same for the rest of the economic boom. It's OK to also credit Alan Greenspan somewhat (just make sure you don't mention his opposition to the Bush tax cuts for the insanely-rich), and maybe even say "I give Bill Clinton credit for not screwing anything up when our economy was the best it's been this century."

Even more amazing is how the Republican congress caused the turnaround to begin in '93, two years before they were even sworn into office.

"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree."---George Carlin

"Facts?! Aw, people can use facts to explain anything that's even remotely true!"---Homer Simpson

There are plently of things liberals and democrats want to stop the government from spending money on. Outdated military programs (this is where about half of you tax money goes). Of course, anytime a democrat suggestes that maybe we don't need to give the Pentagon more money than they ask for every year to support that Cold-War era defense factory in the district of someone on the appropriations committee, we are accused of comprimising the national security of the U.S. Or when we point out that a missle defense shield at the cost of trillions would do absolutely zero to prevent terrorist attacks, which seem to be the kind we're up against right now.

Also corporate welfare. Of course, anytime we think that maybe U.S. corporations should actually, you know, pay taxes in the U.S. instead of pretending to be Bermudan (and it's not like they even try to fool anyone, they're not even PRETENDING that it's anything other than a tax dodge) we're anti-business. Or that maybe we shouldn't give unreal amounts of corporate welfare to our oil buddies, have them rip off their stockholders, and then appoint them to high-ranking office. That's also "anti-business" and "anti free-market."

Both parties love their pork. Ted Stevens and Trent Lott just as much as Bobby Byrd and Tom Daschle. Both parties also have their fiscal priorities. They like to spend money on different things. I happen to think the stuff Democrats like to spend money on is more important than the stuff Republicans like to spend it on.

I certainly agree that Social Security and Medicare taxes need to be fixed. Having them be progressive instead of regressive would solve a lot of that.